tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post8772604049380940050..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Criminologists: Death penalty does not deterGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-41809541543254817522009-08-17T07:05:22.588-05:002009-08-17T07:05:22.588-05:00Scott:
You need be sorry for nothing.
May God, s...Scott:<br /><br />You need be sorry for nothing.<br /><br />May God, somehow, bless you and keep you sound at such a terrible passing.<br /><br />My prayers for you, your niece and family.<br /><br />I am, terribly, sorry.<br /><br />Most sincerely, Dudleydudleysharphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12796468204722853648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-33602197337786410312009-08-17T06:45:21.031-05:002009-08-17T06:45:21.031-05:00Dudley, right after we had that exchange my niece ...Dudley, right after we had that exchange my niece was in a terrible, ultimately fatal accident. She spent three weeks in ICU before passing and I was distracted and never got back to our discussion. Sorry 'bout that.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-80821786207901931862009-08-17T06:02:01.862-05:002009-08-17T06:02:01.862-05:00Scott and I had an exchange, offline, which I aske...Scott and I had an exchange, offline, which I asked permission to post. I never got it.<br /><br />So, here are my comments, slightly edited, to make sense to those not part of the discussion.<br /><br />Scott, to be specific "Addiction, personal circumstances, competing motivations and many other factors" do not "complicate" my "truism.". <br /><br />That presumption is, likely, just one of your errors. <br /><br />All of those things are in the mix, always, they are constants, as are many other things. It is inclusive of all of those things, not exclusive of them, which establishes a truism.<br /><br />For example, what is the biggest deterrent? <br /><br />Overwhelmingly, I find it to be morality. <br /><br />The overwhelming majority of people find that it is wrong to rape and/or murder folks, for example. Regardless of all personal circumstances, the overwhelming majority of people won't commit those acts because of an internal mechanism which says STOP or that's wrong, etc. <br /><br />I find several other things, likely, also, deter more than criminal sanction. <br /><br />I this debate, however, the variable, among all of the constants, that we are looking at is the death penalty. <br /><br />Are there cases where the death penalty deters potential murderers, when other potential deterrents were not effective enough. Certainly. It is the same with all criminal sanctions.<br /><br />First, Scott, I think we agree. You just can't see it. <br /><br />I, specifically, mentioned that the social sciences cannot be depended upon for any final answers. There will always be challenges.<br /><br />However, did you read my general comment of incentives and what they mean to folks?<br /><br />Incentives are the issue with economists. What gets us to do, or not do, certain things. It is, strictly, the basis for human actions. Sure many disagree with economists ' methodology and results. Many agree. <br /><br />However, none disagree that incentives are very important to human actions. None disagree that negative outcome/consequences effect behavior.<br /><br />Or, none rational disagree.<br /><br />Secondly, I contradict the anti death penalty material, for many reasons. A very important public policy issue deserves that both sides be presented, or at least, a portion of both sides.<br /><br />If the media did it, I wouldn't. They don't and won't.<br /><br />I speak to reporters and editors, on and off the record, quite often. In many cases they affirmatively do not present the pro death penalty side. It is an obvious decision.<br /><br />Should any public policy issue be treated that way by the fourth estate? Of course not. <br /><br />Does the truth matter? Of course. Do you and I and many believe that both sides should always be presented so that the public can be fully informed and to make informed decisions on both important and minor public policy issues? Of course.<br /><br />And, what if that isn't being done? Then what? <br /><br />On "trusims", what you discuss was corrected by science. I am speaking strictly of reason. You are the only one I have encountered that challenged my trusim - that all prospects of a negative outcome/consequence deter some. <br /><br />That's OK but your challenge was based upon "More true", which you never defined and which I found humorous. Do better. Be specific.<br /><br />I suspect, I am invovled in the death penalty debate for the same reason you have a blog. Your bog is, mainly, a source of information and discussion. <br /><br />Thank you for it.dudleysharphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12796468204722853648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-91951581486009509032009-08-17T05:47:45.056-05:002009-08-17T05:47:45.056-05:00Scott:
You said you were going to respond to my 7...Scott:<br /><br />You said you were going to respond to my 7/5 11:29 comment.<br /><br />Did you do so somewhere else?<br /> <br />In additon, for some clarity on important issues.<br /><br />"Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"<br />http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html<br /> <br /><br />The 130 (now 135) death row "innocents" scam<br />http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspxdudleysharphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12796468204722853648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-33175376634451517122009-07-05T11:29:37.930-05:002009-07-05T11:29:37.930-05:00Scott:
If you thin k I have misinterpreted the su...Scott:<br /><br />If you thin k I have misinterpreted the survey questions, statements or answers, I would be happy to review them, with you, in this forum.<br /><br />If you think any of the statements or questions and answers I wrote were in error, I would be happy to, speciifcally, review those, as well.dudleysharphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12796468204722853648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-89028115666413690962009-07-05T11:17:52.517-05:002009-07-05T11:17:52.517-05:00Nope. I read the survey and the replies.
Quite cl...Nope. I read the survey and the replies.<br /><br />Quite clear.dudleysharphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12796468204722853648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-63847758387550076472009-07-05T10:26:49.868-05:002009-07-05T10:26:49.868-05:00Dudley, looks to me like you agree with the survey...Dudley, looks to me like you agree with the survey results when they agree with you and ignore or seek to discredit them when they don't.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-50064045550868769592009-07-05T08:54:53.811-05:002009-07-05T08:54:53.811-05:00To Adrienne Dunn:
It is a good thing that potenti...To Adrienne Dunn:<br /><br />It is a good thing that potential murderers don't know how limited death penalty eligible murders are.<br /><br />There was an escape in Texas whereby they didn't murder or rape the transporting guards because on of the escapees told the other prisoners that rape was a death penalty eligible crime.<br /><br />That is a good thing.dudleysharphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12796468204722853648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-23877870172720128232009-07-05T08:45:10.455-05:002009-07-05T08:45:10.455-05:00Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radel...Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock <br />Dudley Sharp, contact info below, 6/09<br /><br />Subject:"Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates? The Views of Leading Criminologists", by Michael Radelet, Traci Lacock (1) <br /><br />There appears to be a lot of confusion, with regard to the actual findings of the subject review/survey (hereinafter "Survey"). The confusion appears to be the result of what Radelet/Lacock say within the text of their article, as opposed to what the results of the survey actually say.<br /><br />SOME REALITY<br /><br />100% (or 77) of the criminologists agree that the death penalty may deter some. (question 12)<br /><br />It is a rational conclusion. All prospects of a negative outcome/consequence deter the behavior of some. It is a truism.<br /><br />61% (or 46) of the criminologists found some support for the deterrent effects of the death penalty through the empirical, social science studies. (question 8)<br /><br />16 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses (2), find for death penalty deterrence. These studies find executions deter from 4-28 murders per execution.<br /><br />Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life. No surprise.<br /><br />If your public policy question is "Does the death penalty deter?" The answer is "Of course it does."<br /><br />Game over? Not quite.<br /><br />Can we accurately and convincingly measure how many innocent lives are spared because of the deterrent effect of the death penalty? Unlikely. Social sciences are not exact sciences. Even if all protocols and data are sound, results will still vary from study to study. This public policy debate is so contentious, in academia, as elsewhere, that there will always be some disagreement over methodology and results. Therefore, the "convincingly" will always be problematic with such studies. <br /><br />The question is not "Does the death penalty deter?" It does. The question is "Will there every be full agreement on how much the death penalty deters?" There won't be.<br /><br />THE CURIOUS CASE OF RADELET/LACOCK<br /><br />The first three Survey questions are specific to murder rates and deterrence. Both reason and social science have known, for a very long time, that murder rates are not how deterrence is established. <br /><br />For example, look at crime rates. Some jurisdictions have high crime rates, some low - from year to year crime rates go up, down or stay, roughly, the same. In all of those circumstances, we know that some potential criminals are deterred from committing crimes by fear of sanction.<br /><br />It is the same with all which deters, inclusive of the death penalty. Whether murder rates go up or down, whether they are high or low, there will be fewer net murders with the death penalty and more net murders without it.<br /><br />Would Radelet/Lacock or the criminologists say that no criminals are deterred because one jurisdiction has higher crime rates than another or because crime rates have risen? Of course not. It would be silly to even suggest such a thing. <br /><br />But, it appears that is what Radelt/Lacock are trying to do with there first three questions. <br /><br />Questions 4 and 5 deal with political implications, which have no relevance to deterrence.<br /><br />Statement 6 "The death penalty significantly reduces the number of homicides". Nearly 57% (or 43) of criminologists said the statement was totally inaccurate. <br /><br />How do the authors quantify a "significant reduction" in murders? They don't. Therefore, no one has a clue as to what the authors or respondents meant.<br /><br />How many innocent lives saved by deterrence is insignificant? There is no insignificant number. <br /><br />One deterred is significant if it is your child's life saved. Is 2-5 innocents saved per year or per execution a significant reduction? 11-25, 112-210, 1800-2800? What is a "significant reduction" in homicides for these 43 criminologists? <br /><br />There is a reason Radelet/Lacock didn't say: "The death penalty deters no one." No one can rationally, or truthfully, make such a statement.<br /><br />SNIPPED - Full reply at<br />http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx?ref=rssdudleysharphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12796468204722853648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-84639450478588751862009-06-20T22:51:22.006-05:002009-06-20T22:51:22.006-05:00Yeah, 05:00 how was that poor guy to know that if ...Yeah, 05:00 how was that poor guy to know that if he raped her before he killed her he might qualify for the death penalty? Give him a break. He was just doing his thing and wasn't even thinkin about no death penalty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-42301478907525100512009-06-19T17:00:51.326-05:002009-06-19T17:00:51.326-05:00Sadly, this is not new news. I represent Texas in...Sadly, this is not new news. I represent Texas inmates on death row on writs of habeas corpus. Like many death row inmates in general, most of my clients are mentally and psychologically disadvantaged. They have no idea what crimes qualify for the death penalty. During jury selection, many citizens express the incorrect belief that capital murder means premediated murder. Lawyers in Texas often describe capital murder as "murder plues" meaning murder plus something else. In most cases, the something else is a separate crime (robbery, sexual assault). Other cases, the something else is the status of the victim (police officer or child under 6). Premediatation is simply not an element of captial murder. So my point is this, if average citizens do not know what crimes qualify for the death penalty, how can mentally and pyschogically diadvantaged people know what future crimes will get them on death row?Adrienne Dunnhttp://www.dunncriminallaw.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-64072696500477031072009-06-19T13:36:02.898-05:002009-06-19T13:36:02.898-05:00George ~ I'm not so sure that LWOP would be th...George ~ I'm not so sure that LWOP would be the next target as you put it. I think if the death penalty was ever universally rejected, focus would be more on the conditions that inmates are held in, and the huge variations by state and country. Some states think it is ok to keep their inmates out in the sun until they die of heat exhaustion, and other states think it is a better idea to have single-person cells and real education and rehabilitation programmes. <br /><br />LWOP is often the suggestion of anti-DP campaigners, and it would be very difficult for them to justify doing away with that option as well, except in the case of children.sunray's wenchhttp://www.helium.com/items/1310875-help-and-advice-for-relatives-of-prisonersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-20371070486996862602009-06-18T22:19:53.551-05:002009-06-18T22:19:53.551-05:00I support the death penalty for two reasons.
Firs...I support the death penalty for two reasons.<br /><br />First, there are crimes so monstrous and such an egrigious violation of the social contract that death is the only just sentence. Timonthy McVeigh, for example, was surely a criminal who deserved death.<br /><br />Second, elimination of the death penalty is not the end game for the European-inspired criminologist. Once the death penalty is dropped, life without parole will become the next crime against humanity. In short, some guilty criminals must be put to death to ensure that all life without parolers stay behind bars until they expire.Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16880659464711708636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-53354237928655983802009-06-18T15:26:04.366-05:002009-06-18T15:26:04.366-05:00Anonymous said...
As for Cantu and Willingham, it...Anonymous said...<br /><br />As for Cantu and Willingham, it's one thing to question the quality of the proof that was used to convict, the concept of actual innocence in a far different matter. One just means you should not have been found "guilty" beyond a reasonable doubt. The other means you really didn't do it. I've yet to see one of those in Texas.<br /><br />6/18/2009 01:47:00 PM<br />------------<br /><br />Since the only person who knows whether or not they actually "did" the crime is the accused, finding out whether they "really did it" will NOT be determined in a Texas court. This is not what our justice system is about.<br /><br />The "concept" of guilt or innocence, as you call it, is determined using imperfect means of witnesses, evidence and in some cases, better DNA evidence. <br /><br />As hard as it is for you to swallow Cantu and Willingham are most likely innocent and they died at Huntsville in "our name". Regardless of the "concept" the fact remains that innocent people have died in the Texas death chamber and it is possible that more will die before common sense prevails.Hook Em Hornshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04660612847019528535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-32459193160915010842009-06-18T15:11:28.771-05:002009-06-18T15:11:28.771-05:00Grits said - "We are all dumber for having to...Grits said - "We are all dumber for having to endure the resulting debate."<br /><br />(and the all caps is for you Informed Citizen)<br /><br />AGREED!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-30857499793964502692009-06-18T14:45:57.803-05:002009-06-18T14:45:57.803-05:00This is an interesting debate.
What is referred t...This is an interesting debate. <br />What is referred to as "the death penalty" is, more properly, a question of whether or not EXECUTIONS by THE STATE is LEGAL.<br />I assert it is not legal. It is an offense against the Laws of God, the Laws of Nature, the Laws of Man, and the supreme Law of our Land. <br />It is an illegal act, as well as an immoral act, and THE STATE gets away with it because the CITIZENS of this Nation are ignorant and foolish and do not have the courage to DEMAND compliance with the Law and HONOR from our Public Servants who act as 'the hands of THE STATE'. <br />Executions of a CITIZEN, by THE STATE, is a threat to every CITIZEN. ----------<br />Some refuse to be blind to this threat to their own saftey. It is a comfortable denial of reality. They prefer to believe their STATE, and the 'system of laws' by which THE STATE operates, is infallible. Even if the Facts are not subject to any reasonable question, they will still assert that it was simply a "question of the quality of the proof". The proof, in the case of Cantu, is beyond question by any reasonable person who is not blinded by a lack of objectivity because they simply don't want to accept the fact that their government, and most of its functionaries (public servants) through which it operates, are incompetent, dishonorable, self-serving, and even psycho-sociopaths who are smart enough to know that employment at public expense as a public servant, under the cover of a license for employment in law enforcement, a license to practice law and/or employment were one wears a black robe, is the best hiding place for committing serial murder and other crimes with impunity. <br />-------------------- <br />LOOK UP the history channel documentary titled "HITLER'S HENCHMEN". It is an expose of the Judiciary of THE STATE. The Jews were guilty of a statutory offense. Their Innocence was not Actual. Many of them, and the other HALF of those who were executed or died in the prisons of THE STATE (referred to as 'concentration camps' in an attempt to make them something other than what they were) were given 'due process of law'. They were given trials, including appeals, but their 'actual guilt' remained. Their 'innocence' was not 'actual' even though they were 'innocent' of committing any wrong or harm to another human. <br />--------------<br />Under our system of law, if there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then the innocence of the accused is actual. Why? Because it is NOT the duty of the accused citizen to prove their actual innocence. And a conviction is NOT a finding of 'actual guilt'. All that is required is 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' for a penal sanction to be imposed. The 'actual innocence' of the convicted is a gift from God that comes with the breath of life God, or Nature as their creator, endowed the human with. <br />----------------------<br />They may be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But their innocence remains actual until they die a natural death and then God, alone, can make the determination of whether or not their guilt was 'actual' because God alone knows. <br /><br />RESPECTFULLY, in defense of 'self-evident truths' and the supreme Law of the Land, Informed Citizens hopes to inform fellow Citizens of the threat to their safety posed by THE STATE, by and through the incompetent arrogance or dishonorable malfeasance of the hands through which it functions.Informed Citizenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06933944702188649792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-51846181301581415162009-06-18T14:37:55.576-05:002009-06-18T14:37:55.576-05:00The death penalty is not or will ever be "jus...The death penalty is not or will ever be "justice." It is revenge by the state, pure and simple. And to Anonymous the death penalty advocate. what are you, some kind of coward, you must post anonymously?Charlie Onoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-60191583296629131942009-06-18T13:47:12.355-05:002009-06-18T13:47:12.355-05:00I'm thinking there's a little bit of a dis...I'm thinking there's a little bit of a distinction between the Jews killed in the Holacaust and our capital murderers on death row who have been furnished a trial by jury, innumerable appeals, and more expensive due process than exists in any other type of litigation. <br /><br />As for those who argue all life is "sacred," ....well, at least I respect that position. It's genuine and not like that of many death penalty opponents who have been looking for some popular "cause" to be associated ever since we pulled out of Hanoi. <br /><br />As for Cantu and Willingham, it's one thing to question the quality of the proof that was used to convict, the concept of actual innocence in a far different matter. One just means you should not have been found "guilty" beyond a reasonable doubt. The other means you really didn't do it. I've yet to see one of those in Texas.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-74085209943827971162009-06-18T11:48:40.558-05:002009-06-18T11:48:40.558-05:00Until 1941 there had been plans to "cleanse&q...Until 1941 there had been plans to "cleanse" Germany of Jews by gathering them together and expelling them from the Reich. One plan had as its goal the transfer of Germany's Jews to Madagascar. A contingent of Jews had even been moved to southern France in preparation. However, wartime conditions and the presence of millions of Jews in Poland, the Soviet Union, and other occupied areas in Eastern Europe gradually led to the adoption of another plan: the systematic extermination of all Jews who came under German control. Techniques that had been developed for the regime's euthanasia program came to be used against Jews. Discussions in January 1942 at the Wannsee Conference on the outskirts of Berlin led to the improved organization and coordination of the program of genocide.<br /><br />Killing came to be done in an efficient, factorylike fashion in large extermination camps run by Himmler's Special Duty Section (Sonderdienst--SD). The tempo of the mass murder of Jewish men, women, and children was accelerated toward the end of the war. Hitler's preoccupation with the "final solution" was so great that the transport of Jews was at times given preference over the transport of war matériel. Authorities generally agree that about 6 million European Jews died in the Holocaust. A large number (about 4.5 million) of those killed came from Poland and the Soviet Union; about 125,000 German Jews were murdered.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-62993851388980061452009-06-18T11:30:50.455-05:002009-06-18T11:30:50.455-05:00The elimination of the Jews from Nazi Germany was ...The elimination of the Jews from Nazi Germany was codified as eliminating them from the economy, and taking their property. I cannot find German law stating that it was legal to execute/kill Jews. The Final Solution (Hitler) was executed in secret from the general German population, although I am sure that it was common knowledge by the end of the war.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-92180552459590002832009-06-18T11:24:43.614-05:002009-06-18T11:24:43.614-05:00Just for the record, I am a European woman, and I ...Just for the record, I am a European woman, and I am NOT anti-death penalty.sunray's wenchhttp://www.helium.com/items/1310875-help-and-advice-for-relatives-of-prisonersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-26063730986260239722009-06-18T11:20:14.452-05:002009-06-18T11:20:14.452-05:00Anonymous said...
I would challenge anyone to pro...Anonymous said...<br /><br />I would challenge anyone to provide the name of any truly "innocent" subject who has been executed in this state.<br /><br />6/18/2009 08:52:00 AM<br /><br />RUBEN CANTU!Hook Em Hornshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04660612847019528535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-49830382264266228922009-06-18T11:19:28.941-05:002009-06-18T11:19:28.941-05:00Anon 11:54/Common Sense Cop, no get your facts str...Anon 11:54/Common Sense Cop, no get your facts straight. The rape, torture, and murder of women is NOT a daily occurrence. If that were the case, the population of women in this state would have moved away along ago. an as far as the border area, sorry but you cannot factually state on which side it occurred. <br /><br />Saying that, I must admit raping, torturing, and killing someone is one of the most heinous acts I can think of, however the overtly inaccurate message being sent is what has created the panic amongst the population.<br /><br />By your accounts, there were 365 women at the border last year raped, tortured, and murdered? (all three)..<br /><br />The day I heard of Rubin Cantu I stopped believing in the process.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-91460019039206354142009-06-18T11:15:14.246-05:002009-06-18T11:15:14.246-05:00Question for Grits & others:
Was the execution...Question for Grits & others:<br />Was the execution of the Jews, and others convicted by the STATE of Germany, legal? <br />Under the Law of THE STATE, it was. The Decisional Law of the Neuremburg trials, now part of INTERENATIONAL Law, and part of our "supreme Law of the Land", says it was not. Nor was the excuse of "just following orders" by those who carried out the lawful orders. <br />Difference of Opinion? Difference of Facts?Informed Citizenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06933944702188649792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1654068450672780402009-06-18T11:09:25.123-05:002009-06-18T11:09:25.123-05:00"So let me get this right to make sure I unde..."So let me get this right to make sure I understand your point. If the woman is murdered, the death penalty should not be considered; however,..."<br /><br />No that is not my point at all. My point was that generalizing something such as the rape, torture, and murder of a woman (or man/child) brings no more credibility to the argument for the death penalty. It simply takes information that is blown out of proportion by news media and elected officials and attempts to justify something that is used far too often. Although the death penalty is not 'a daily occurrence' as you state, the state of Texas has murderer 16 people already this year, and only three of those were for a similar offense as your stated. in 2008, 18 were put to death, of which 6 were of that same class. and in 2007 26 people were put to death in Texas. Now I am not saying that these were not bad people. Matter of fact, I must admit some of them deserved death for the crime they committed, however I believe again that the death penalty should NOT be used if murder (proven as murder and not manslaughter) is not proven as the motive that drove them to commit the crime. if a drug deal goes bad and the bullets start flying, I am opposed to the death sentence, that as well as death penalty for rapists. There is no excuse to put to death anyone that didn;t have motivation to commit murder in the first place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com